it is first of all an aroumred prey item with literally no meat on the outside to slice, and the teeth obviously at least puncture it without problems.
Sea turtles are not small animals, and prove that Carcharodon does not avoid bones in the way you are implying.
OK, so basically not clearly defined, just a vague differentiation that doesn't really give you any relevant data on the bite except for the fact that the bones have been bitten but not bitten through in both cases...
You do not either, but you are the one making sensationalist inferences not properly supported. I have yet to see the evidence you are talking about.
Again, the vast majority of
C. megalodon consists of ghashes with some fossils of unknown of comparatively small size apparently bitten through (ribs and vertebrae, probably not too different from the situation of
C. carcharias biting in half dolphins or people). In an animal that killed by biting (and slicing
through) bones, and that has left so many well preserved bite marks on the fossil record, there'd have to be evidences of a killing bite damaging a truly big bone in relation to its size.
I have my eyes, and I don't ignore the evidence and the works, so I don't infer the ability to "slice every bone" for the megatooth.
The problem is, you give too much credential to popular articles, documentaries and other vague and inofficial statements. If we believe such sources
Carcharodontosaurus too has "bone-crunching" dentition, and
Spinosaurus' teeth are "like steakknifes", and you misinterpret the more rigorous sources to your liking, because you want this creature to not just be deadly, no, but the deadliest on earth, capable of the combined advantages of sharp teeth and bone-destruction, and just a large, robust shark killing huge whales alone isn't enough for you.
You want to to be capable of slicing every bone and also everything else. But this is not what the evidence suggests.
The evidence suggests, that just like a great white, it could brutally attack smaller prey (in
Carcharodon: bitten turtles, humans/dolphins bitten in half--in
Carcharocles: bitten whale ribcages, decapitated cetotheres) and was more careful when attacking gigantic (>=itself) prey items, were it targeted the locomotive structures, i.e. musculature or tendons, to disable the prey (you can see this tactic among other things when great whites or komodo dragons attack big prey animals, it is very effective, it just isn't an omnipotent superweapon. This shouldn't disturb you).
There is merely a quantitative difference here, i.e. how much and how well it practised attacks on bony parts (which it certainly did more than extant white sharks do), but not a qualitative one, that it didn't crush them or killed by damaging bone (which would usually imply it to crush a skull or sever a medulla spinalis, biting through the neural arches).
I've posted the picture for two times on this thread alone and it is also on the jaw apparata thread, you just have to do your research.
Maybe, I'm not sure. I can very well imagine a Big Al-sized Allosaurus biting through the vertebral collumn of a 200kg ornithopod, it would probably dislocate such an animal's vertebrae with the mere impact of its cranium and saw through the tissues between in varanid-like fashio, tough it arguably has an easier time here since it has less robust prey (but a 7m cetothere is not 1/5 the weight of a 16m meg, rather 1/10, unless you are hinting it was significantly bulkier than the shark).
That is not the point here, and whether/how it did that remains to be seen. I am using
Allosaurus because it is an analogy of another large, ziphodont, macrophagous predator killing primarily by exanguination that is very well supported on the fossil record, unlike many others. If you have a problem with that, don't reply, I urge you again.
I already know you are always very quick at finding bias in my posts! I'm really sick of those baseless provokating rant on me!
Something about this and the last paragraph tells me you are a bit on edge at the moment. But I shouldn't be surprised.
You claim me not to read research works that "don't enter my acceptance". At the same time you still live in denial of evidence like Hone & Rauhut, 2009 and the therein cited papers that I provided you for several times.
And we are speaking in relative terms concerning the bone damaging potential, of it and other predators. If it has the same bite force at parity, it has no higher bone-crushing capabilities. If you have not understood that, then I don't understand what is the point of you even arguing.
Because it is a "slicer", and all the bite marks point out to that.
It has no puncturing/crushing dentition, but comparatively loosely rooted, broad, neither a presumed bite force or jaw morphology correlating with this style of killing. It's teeth would have to be RADICALLY different for that purpose. And if it had, it would not be very capable of exanguination.
May I remind you you always nominate
C. megalodon the "mother of all predators" despite the informatlity of the term? Or Otodus a "large body slasher", something I don't even know what exactly it is supposed to mean? Feel free to come up with a better term than "slicer" for an animal that kills by slicing (ie. severing of tissue using sharp edges rather than blunt force in case this is still too informal).
Pay more attention to my posts please, since you always tell that to me and even think you were in a position to leave comments like the above!
I have not argued about Allosaurus bite potency, it is completely out of the question, just as that of
C. megalodon. If you are interested in it, read my relevant posts on it on the appropriate thread. And if wider analogies of other taxa with some analogous morphology disturb you that much, it is not my problem. I have already noticed you seem to avoid coming to conclusions based on known morphology/function correlations and instead prefer to parrot statements of questionable accuracy you find in some article or film ("carnosaurs have very fragile teeth" "megalodon could slice through any bone!!!") or otherwise just ignore things you don't see advertised enough ("I've not seen evidences for that", the above applying to several of your statements).
With all that I'd have no problem and I'd keep my mouth shut about what my opinion about your reasoning is, considering I might be wrong. But I can not understand how with all that you keep arguing I was an incredibly biased person because I questioned your view of things.
I have argued about the likely purpose of the dentition, based on bite marks and morphology. The fact which you do not want to accept is, that unless you say the same about Allosaurus, you cannot seriously suggest C. megalodon was an animal routinely biting through large bones in equally or larger sized prey, and even less that it did and at the same time had a fabulous potency of meat-tearing.
I don't undermine C. megalodon to be a less potent biter than what is indicated, this is your problem, you always automatically assume I'm biased, it is you who is too sure of his conviction regarding its omnipotent capabilities. C. megalodon was a potent biter, potent as in "can easily deal huge fatal injuries, even to whales bigger than itself". But not as in "can slice through any material of any animal". It's teeth are not lightsabers.
I don't want to come up with the comparative morphology of
T. rex again, because I know you would again try to establish
Megalodon teeth were like those of
T. rex, and because I know you'd probably find some pretext to say the analogy was wrong and biased (my "beloved theropods" or even funnier, my "T. rex hatret"!). But if necessary, I will.
You want C. megalodon to be an omnipotent ultimative biting machine that can bite through anything without any limitations. The fossil record does not support that, biomechanics don't, and so I will not accept it either, give me as many misinterpretations of opinions as you want. It would be cool if such an animal was possible, but it is not.
So stop hinting me to be biased in all of your posts and instead mind your own business and rather question whether you are yourself before making big claims just to intersect the flow of a discussion so that you don't have to provide argumentation!
Really sure of that? it does not appear Great whites above a ton are very common, tough present
www.escholarship.org/uc/item/2t8325zpAs regards size, a great white attacking a dolphin, decent sized seal or human is not a bad analogy for Carcharocles dispatching a cetothere.
Don't tell me I ignore things and then post stuff like that. Otherwise I may come up with "<1/5 its own size cetothere sliced in half" and "potency to bite through the largest bones" being a poor analogy too.
What matters is "how big are the bones sliced", and in this regard, great whites have also been recorded slicing through large bones, that doesn't mean they could slice every bone in any animal no matter how large.
Why don't you do so? You ignored a whole lot of material in this debate, from photos of predominant bite marks for various species, to drawings in papers, to basic physical facts, to prey and attack-style preferences, to recorded incidents.
Please recall "common sense" is a very bad argument, especially on quantitative, biomechanical matters.
You can also simply call it "guess".
That was what you initially argued. Something the like of "both could bite through bone equally good but at the same time megalodon had much better exanguination potency", which is impossible due to basic payoffs affecting dental morphology.
At least now it is not "slice in half even the largest vertebrae" any more. I agree with the bleeding part, that was my point. It used typical, meat slicing attacks on these preys, ignoring the bone just like other slicers do.
That its attack style was not the same as a great whites does not change that. Of course, depending on the predominant prey item and the consequent differences, it will not target the exact same regions. My point still stands that slicing a rib that is much thinner than its teeth are long or wide is not something C. carcharias could not accomplish as well if it wanted, it just has a stronger preference for attacking softer regions in comparatively large prey. It is an impressive feat in both of them.
On reading your post I had the exact same toughts. I think it is time to end this debate.
Keep in mind your view may for once not necessarily be the correct one. I see you agreed with me on some basic points even tough obviously intepreting many things differently and me finding many of your points highly illogical.
But please stop making provoking comments everywhere in between, those are not a sign of objectiveness and highly disruptive to the discussion!